W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > November 2002

Re: rewrite of TOC checkpoints.

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 21:03:54 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

I like the general idea, but I would make it more specific.  We are using 
this to replace something like 6-8 TOC checkpoints that dealt each with one 
DoV or other conformance aspect (like location of conformance clause).  It 
should still be a specific requirement that each of those those required 
pieces of information be a part of the MUST requirements, instead of 
rationale or examples.

This could be handled by appending to the "fulfill" part some specific 
minima, something like, "...including at minimally:  an unambiguous 
statement about those DoV that the specification employs, the conformance 
clause, the conformance section,  conformance claims, [ICS, TAs, etc]".

This makes it more verifiable, and also makes it equivalent to the previous 
functionality (or better) .


At 09:48 AM 11/3/2002 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

>I suggest:
>Remove all: TOC checkpoints.
>In Guideline 13, add:
>Checkpoint:  Provide a way to find conformance information
>To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST provide at least one 
>navigation mechanism that allows the reader to locate all 
>conformance-related information in the specification.
>Rationale: A reader must be able to easily identify and locate all the 
>information necessary to understand the conformance policy and related 
>conformance information without having to read the document from cover to 
>cover.  Conformance information includes: the conformance section, 
>conformance clause, and material about conformance variability.  A table 
>of contents entry is one way to accomplish this.
>(@@ I included the last sentence in the rationale even though I believe it 
>is a technique, to help clarify what is meant here.  I didn't include it 
>in the checkpoint or To Fulfill, since it is a technique.
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2002 23:07:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:30 UTC